Nebraska Federal Court Questions USCIS's EB-1A Final Merit Determination Criterion

IRVING, Texas - Feb. 5, 2026 - PRLog -- In an important event related to the EB-1A law, a Nebraska federal court has raised legal questions about how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) applies the so-called "final merits" analysis in EB-1A green card cases. The ruling, issued in Mukherji v. Miller, directly challenges the agency's long-standing practice of denying EB-1A petitions even after applicants meet the required criteria.

The EB-1A category provides permanent residency to individuals with extraordinary ability in fields such as science, arts, business, or athletics. To qualify, petitioners must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and satisfy specific regulatory criteria. After USCIS implements the initial regulatory review, it conducts a second stage review known as the "final merits determination," where adjudicators weigh all evidence collectively.

In this case, the court found that USCIS used this second step in a manner that lacked clear standards and failed to explain its rationale. The judge held that the policy was implemented without proper rulemaking procedures and that vague final merits denials are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

"USCIS cannot restate the legal standard and announce a conclusion without explaining why the evidence falls short," the court stated, underscoring that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation when changing policy. The ruling vacated USCIS's denial of the EB-1A petition and ordered the agency to approve it.

Immigration advocates say this decision could have wide-ranging implications for future EB-1A cases. Attorneys and EB-1A experts (https://gceb1.com/a-nebraska-federal-court-questions-usci...) believe it reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in how extraordinary ability petitions are adjudicated.

For more details on what it means for EB-1A applicants, visit GCEB1's full coverage.